Election Eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election

In the last entry I wrote about the forecast of Hurricane Sandy in light of the upcoming election. That begat a short special to The Globe and Mail, a major Canadian newspaper. In that piece, I stated that the hurricane was an opportunity to bring climate and climate change back as a serious political issue. Here, at the election I want to revisit, briefly, some of the political issues discussed in these blogs over the past four years, and think a little bit about the future.

Looking forward to the 2012 election, I don’t expect that climate change will be an oft-articulated issue. The issue out front will be jobs, and the prominent link will be made between the exploitation of fossil fuels, new jobs, and energy security. Our approach to climate change will remain quietly in the hands of those savvy enough to use the unique knowledge provided by climate projections and those post-government truth tellers who no longer have to look away.

After COP15 I felt that the U.S. had lost any leadership potential that it might have had on the global stage of climate policy. I also felt that we were squandering technological and economic advantage. I made a prediction prior to COP15: “I imagine that the machinations of legislation and lobbying will push climate change legislation close enough to the mid-term election that it will languish next to health care and Afghanistan and the economy. I think that there will be climate legislation, but I bet that it will be early in year 4 of the Obama administration, with its passage dependent on what Obama’s re-election looks like.”

So that prediction was wrong. What I did not anticipate was the sweeping change in the mid-term election that amplified the political attack on climate change, as well as an attack in general on the use of scientific information in policy and regulation. This attack on the use of knowledge in policy, which is complemented by assaults on very small parts of the U.S. federal budget in the name of budget cutting, only amplifies my concern that the U.S. is placing itself at technological, economic, and, now, research disadvantage. I would insert into the argument about, for instance, the bankruptcy of Solyndra, that our unstable policy on technological investment delayed U.S. development while foreign competitors built effective and market-friendly alternatives. We simply came to the game too late. The fragmented, up and down nature of both energy and climate policy hurt us everyday. For example, we are currently enamored of cheap natural gas and its potential to revitalize industry. This is a great local and short-term benefit. As far as climate policy, it does not serve as convincing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, there are other environmental challenges with the acquisition of natural gas that will emerge rapidly in the next few years. Therefore, as far as energy policy, it is only short-term opportunism.

Despite the flurry of chatter of climate change as an issue that has followed Superstorm (nee Hurricane) Sandy, it is difficult to look across such a close election and see climate change emerging as a substantive issue on a national scale. To make progress on this issue requires support in the Legislative Branch. I expect that tribal partisanship will continue, and I hope that we spend our first quota of bipartisan behavior on stabilizing the federal budget, dealing with political-economic sequestration, and reconciling continuing resolutions. Thinking about voting, more than climate change in particular, the continued assault on science and the use of science-derived knowledge is, fundamentally, part of the threat to our thriving. This notion of American Exceptionalism takes on the hollow boosterism of Dust Bowl towns, which looked knowledge in the eyes and denied its existence. The world is changing in ways that we do not control, and it will not be good if we are the ones reliant on burning stuff for our way of life.

The date of the first snow of the season can vary greatly from year to year but, on average, the it usually occurs before November across the Rockies and over the far north. Places such as Boston and New York City usually do not get their first measurable snowfall until mid-December, but this year it came early.

At long last EPA has lifted its requirement that corn-based ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) be added to gasoline, allegedly to fight pollution, in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1990. But, as I pointed out in my book MAKERS AND TAKERS, as far back as 1997 EPA was receiving reports of adverse health consequences from MTBE, and some states were already banning its use. EPA officials admitted they were surprised to find MTBE in blood samples from people even in Alaska. So why did it take almost another nine years for EPA to take action?

By 1999 sixteen states had banned MTBE. Still, EPA would do nothing for another seven years. By 2001, MTBE was found to have polluted the ground water in 49 states, including 20 percent of the nation’s urban water wells. California alone had identified 10,000 sites of polluted ground water, with some sites having 1,000 times the EPA limit for this chemical. Santa Monica found MTBE in its municipal water supply. You could no longer drink the water in beautiful Santa Monica. By 2002 the city had imported water continuously for four years at a cost of $3 million per year. New York identified 1,500 MTBE-polluted sites, and 3 million people were exposed on Long Island alone, which was found to have more than 100 polluted municipal wells, and those people had no alternative source of water.

As I had said, in my post #52, it is the EPA's job to enforce the laws. Should a law be flawed then it is Congress's job to modify or remove the law. Politics, not sound environmental science, lead to the use of corn based Ethanol as a gasoline additive. I agree that corn based Ethanol should have never been mandated as a gasoline additive. No table food source should be and non additive should be considered as such without a sound scientific basis to do so.

We already know that your views on AGW are politically and ideologically based. Have you tried basing your opinions solely on the science? After all, that IS what it is all about. The AGWT was never based on your, or anyone's ideology or political beliefs. It is based completely on the science. Politics and ideology only become involved in determining how we approach the problem. Not a very smart approach to determining how we handle the problem. It is really is a more do or die situation.

American Liberty Publishers

Ethanol and MTBE - Should EPA Be Abolished?

At long last EPA has lifted its requirement that corn-based ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) be added to gasoline, allegedly to fight pollution, in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1990. But, as I pointed out in my book MAKERS AND TAKERS, as far back as 1997 EPA was receiving reports of adverse health consequences from MTBE, and some states were already banning its use. EPA officials admitted they were surprised to find MTBE in blood samples from people even in Alaska. So why did it take almost another nine years for EPA to take action?

By 1999 sixteen states had banned MTBE. Still, EPA would do nothing for another seven years. By 2001, MTBE was found to have polluted the ground water in 49 states, including 20 percent of the nation’s urban water wells. California alone had identified 10,000 sites of polluted ground water, with some sites having 1,000 times the EPA limit for this chemical. Santa Monica found MTBE in its municipal water supply. You could no longer drink the water in beautiful Santa Monica. By 2002 the city had imported water continuously for four years at a cost of $3 million per year. New York identified 1,500 MTBE-polluted sites, and 3 million people were exposed on Long Island alone, which was found to have more than 100 polluted municipal wells, and those people had no alternative source of water.

So, what do we have here? A Republican president that not only talked about a cleaner environment but, also helped to create laws to enforce a cleaner environment. Days gone by when the Republican Party not only "talked the talk" but would also "walk the walk". Political parties have seemed to have lost their integrity to do as they say they would do. Today's Republicans clamor all over the public touting how they favor a clean environment. "YES! YES! We should do all we can do to clean the environment!" But, when it comes to allowing the EPA to do its assigned duties, today's Republicans want to destroy any legislation that is designed to protect the environment. Do some research on how Tom DeLay organized the Republicans in the House of Representatives to try to overturn The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act. When he failed to gain the votes needed to overturn these Acts, he successfully cut the funding of the agency that is charged with the enforcement of these laws, the EPA. He also directed the cutting of funds for OSHA after he could not get rid of it. Every single serious contender of the last Republican Primaries vowed to get rid of the EPA. Republicans to day still "talk the talk" concerning the environment, but when it comes time to "walk the walk" they have a strong tendency to mess in their pants in then try to waddle their way through it.

The EPA was set up to enforce environmental laws. In order for any agency to enforce the laws that are on the books it must be independent of any political party that would only make efforts to steer it away from its primary responsibility.

Go back throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. CO2 levels have increased nearly every year over the past 150 years. CO2 levels don't listen to politicians. Only our actions will bring the level back down. Our inaction will see a continued rise in the CO2 level. You simply cannot take the North Carolina's legislative approach of saying anthropogenic sea level rise cannot be used for future development considerations. That is kind of like saying the state population can only be based on past population changes and no other considerations should be used to determine future development considerations. I see a developmental problem here, with a heavy accent on "mental"!

i thought the EPA was tougher when dems control things??? or is the EPA tougher when the repubs control things???

Among the difficult decisions facing President Obama is whether to give the go ahead for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada down to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Environmentalists want it blocked. They are concerned about endangering the Nebraska sand hills, under which is the largest aquifer in the country. It provides drinking water and irrigation water for several states.

Oil companies and their supporters, meanwhile, say the pipeline is in the national interest because it will create thousands of jobs and make the country more energy independent.

In January, Obama refused to make a decision about the fate of the pipeline, citing a State Department recommendation for more time to review alternative pipeline routes.

But now that the presidential election is over, environmentalists and politicians are putting renewed pressure on Obama to make up his mind. Sarah Ladislaw from the Center for Strategic and International Studies spoke with NPR's Renee Montagne about the prospects for the project.

On whether Obama will approve the pipeline

"I do think that he'll approve the pipeline for two reasons: one, because he would have to find a reason why it's against the national interest. And for a country that doesn't have an overarching climate policy, that's hard to say because we believe in reducing emissions we don't necessarily want to be importing a higher emission fuel. And the second being this has become sort of a political lightning rod to exemplify the debate between pro-oil and gas people and anti-oil and gas people in this country. And it's not the most effective way of debating those issues. So politically it would be good to get beyond it and get on to a lot of the other things that the president will have to debate within energy policy."

We already know that your views on AGW are politically and ideologically based. Have you tried basing your opinions solely on the science? After all, that IS what it is all about. The AGWT was never based on your, or anyone's ideology or political beliefs. It is based completely on the science. Politics and ideology only become involved in determining how we approach the problem. Not a very smart approach to determining how we handle the problem. It is really is a more do or die situation.

Go back throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. CO2 levels have increased nearly every year over the past 150 years. CO2 levels don't listen to politicians. Only our actions will bring the level back down. Our inaction will see a continued rise in the CO2 level. You simply cannot take the North Carolina's legislative approach of saying anthropogenic sea level rise cannot be used for future development considerations. That is kind of like saying the state population can only be based on past population changes and no other considerations should be used to determine future development considerations. I see a developmental problem here, with a heavy accent on "mental"!

Among the difficult decisions facing President Obama is whether to give the go ahead for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada down to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Environmentalists want it blocked. They are concerned about endangering the Nebraska sand hills, under which is the largest aquifer in the country. It provides drinking water and irrigation water for several states.

Oil companies and their supporters, meanwhile, say the pipeline is in the national interest because it will create thousands of jobs and make the country more energy independent.

In January, Obama refused to make a decision about the fate of the pipeline, citing a State Department recommendation for more time to review alternative pipeline routes.

But now that the presidential election is over, environmentalists and politicians are putting renewed pressure on Obama to make up his mind. Sarah Ladislaw from the Center for Strategic and International Studies spoke with NPR's Renee Montagne about the prospects for the project.

On whether Obama will approve the pipeline

"I do think that he'll approve the pipeline for two reasons: one, because he would have to find a reason why it's against the national interest. And for a country that doesn't have an overarching climate policy, that's hard to say because we believe in reducing emissions we don't necessarily want to be importing a higher emission fuel. And the second being this has become sort of a political lightning rod to exemplify the debate between pro-oil and gas people and anti-oil and gas people in this country. And it's not the most effective way of debating those issues. So politically it would be good to get beyond it and get on to a lot of the other things that the president will have to debate within energy policy."

The mystery of the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica, at the same time as global warming is melting swaths of Arctic sea ice, has been solved using data from US military satellites.

This summer saw a record low in Arctic sea ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago. Holland said the changing pattern of sea ice at both poles would also affect global ocean circulation, with unknown effects. He noted that while Antarctic sea ice was growing, the Antarctic ice cap – the glacier and snow pack on the continent – was losing mass, with the fresh water flowing into the ocean.

The research on Antarctic sea ice, published in Nature Geoscience, revealed large regional variations. In places where warm winds blowing from the tropics towards Antarctica had become stronger, sea ice was being lost rapidly. “In some areas, such as the Bellingshausen Sea, the sea ice is being lost as fast as in the Arctic,” said Holland.

Now I know that it is impossible to reply to this massively stupid and insulting post without getting banned. So go ahead, ban me. No one will see this but you admins.

I just wonder how you admins can sit there knowing that WUG is the biggest clearinghouse for denialist propaganda in the world, enforce your censorship against anyone but the deniers, and know (or is it claim to know?) what is going on with the climate.

How do you sleep at night. Hanson has called it crimes against humanity. What do you call it "fair and balanced"?

The technical data is pointing to a sustained rally that could take gold to all-time highs within the next few months. MoneyShow’s Tom Aspray analyzes four top metals ETFs to find the best ones for near-term buying.

n fact, selling accelerated shortly before 11 a.m., when Apple fell into bear market territory — dropping more than 20 percent from its recent all-time high of 705.07 on Sept. 21, 2012.

Certain “Obama” sectors are among the worst performers, with heavy volume backing their declines. The Financial Sector SPDR ETF [XLF 15.50 0.0218 (+0.14%) ], for example, is having its worst day since May’s lackluster jobs report was released on June 1. The exchange traded fund is booking heavier-than-normal volume, with more than 70 million shares changing hands as of early afternoon.

Quoting philhoey:My two cents is that we had better stop looking for any kind of leadership from Washington, DC. The political types are too blasted busy attempting to divide the fly feces from the pepper to pay attention to the big issues. All they can do is 'kick the can down the road' and hope they are no longer in office when the fit hits the shan.Leadership on this issue has to come from the bottom up with everyone wanting to alter their own life style and make do with less. As a child our family did just fine with one vehicle. Just a little more planning on getting to work (public transportation), less 'I want it' spending, do all your shopping one day a week - plan ahead.We always turned off the lights when leaving a room. How many people do you know leave every freaking light in the house on.Can one person make a difference - multiply that by several million - yes.Stop waiting for Big Brother to wave the magic wand.It ain't gonna happen.

I agree that this will take a grassroots effort to accomplish anything. The first measure is to expose the denial industry for what it truly is and then grab the collars of our politicians to get their attention.

Gee, I never read a single line in the report that says CO2 may yet be our salvation. Would you mind highlighting this area for us?

Here is the summary of that report. Highlighting will be mine.

SUMMARY

"Peatlands cover approximately 65,600 km2 (16 %) of the Swedish land area. The available areas suitable for peatland expansion are far from occupied after ca. 12,000 years of the present interglacial. We estimate the potential extent of peatland in Sweden, based on slope properties of possible areas excluding lakes and glaciofluvial deposits. We assume no human presence or anthropic effects, so the calculation is speculative. It may have been relevant for previous interglacials.

We calculate the potential final area of peatlands in three scenarios where they cover all available land with different maximum slope angles (1−3 º) using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The three scenarios yield potential peatland areas of 95,663 km2 (21 % of total available area), 168,287 km2 (38 %) and 222,141 km2 (50 %). The relative increases from the present 65,600 km2 are 46, 157 and 239 % respectively. The slope scenarios give CO2 uptake rates of 8.9−10.8, 18.1−22.4 and 24.6−30.5 Mt yr−1. Under global warming conditions with isotherms moved northwards and to higher altitudes, following an increase of raised bog area, the CO2 uptake rates might increase to 12.2−13.8, 24.4−27.7 and 33.5−37.9 Mt yr−1; i.e. up to 4.3−4.9 vpb of atmospheric CO2. If we make the speculative extrapolation from Sweden to all high latitude peatlands, and assume that all suitable areas with slope angle ≤ 3 ° become occupied, the global peatland CO2 sink might approach 3.7 Gt yr−1 (about 2 vpm yr−1) and potentially cause a net radiative cooling approaching 5 W m−2."

Gee, I just don't know. Looks to me like there is a whole lot of assuming, possibilities, maybes and "I don't know" comments going on here. Are you able to give us a few more certainties in this theory? Has anyone looked at what may make null and void this theory? You know, such as making null and void the assumption that there will be "no human presence or anthropic effects" part of that conversation. Are you expecting a complete die off of our species and then everything will be fine? Earth will heal itself in our absence? Well, I happen to agree with that part.

My two cents is that we had better stop looking for any kind of leadership from Washington, DC. The political types are too blasted busy attempting to divide the fly feces from the pepper to pay attention to the big issues. All they can do is 'kick the can down the road' and hope they are no longer in office when the fit hits the shan.Leadership on this issue has to come from the bottom up with everyone wanting to alter their own life style and make do with less. As a child our family did just fine with one vehicle. Just a little more planning on getting to work (public transportation), less 'I want it' spending, do all your shopping one day a week - plan ahead.We always turned off the lights when leaving a room. How many people do you know leave every freaking light in the house on.Can one person make a difference - multiply that by several million - yes.Stop waiting for Big Brother to wave the magic wand.It ain't gonna happen.

Quoting RevElvis:"Warming is likely to be on the high side of the projections," said John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the report, which was based on satellite measurements of the atmosphere.

That means the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather.

IOW, we're in even deeper trouble than we thought.

I suppose many alive today will continue to deny reality, knowing (or at least assuming) they'll be dead and buried well before 2100. What they're not considering: a) the nastiest effects of climate change will be evident long before that, and b) they themselves may be gone, but their grandchildren will be here to "enjoy" the fruits of granddad's ignorance and negligence.

Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much. Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark.

“Warming is likely to be on the high side of the projections,” said John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the report, which was based on satellite measurements of the atmosphere.

That means the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather.

FEMA offices shut 'due to bad weather' after snow storm batters Sandy victims and leaves thousands stranded and without power

FEMA stations shut down in storm, inflicting yet more misery for families affected by Superstorm Sandy last week Nearly 60,000 customers in New York and New Jersey who lost power in storm have now lost it again

A strong Nor'easter last night dumped heavy snow on the same region that was pummeled by Superstorm Sandy last week - even forcing FEMA to shut its doors to families in need.

The federal agency shuttered its recovery centers, which were set up to offer assistance to those most affected by the monster storm, and the Staten Island office closed 'due to bad weather'.

The Nor'easter rattled the East Coast with high winds and piles of wet, slushy snow on Wednesday - leaving thousands of Sandy victims without power just after it had been restored.

Adding to the mess, the three major airports in the tri-state area closed, commuter trains slowed service, and mass transit lurched to a halt, inflicting another round of misery on the city’s residents.

Thanks for the link, ARiot. I live at 8.8° north latitude in the mountains of Panama, and this will be an interesting subject to investigate.

Quoting Brian Vastag, Washington Post:One source of uncertainty involves the impact of cloud cover, especially clouds that form in the tropical and subtropical regions between about 30 degrees north and south of the equator.

“Tropical clouds are so important to climate,” Fasullo said. “Small changes in clouds near the equator have a big effect on where you end up” for temperature predictions.

As sunlight pours onto the tropics, clouds bounce some of that heat back into space. Fewer clouds open up the atmosphere “like an iris,” Fasullo said, allowing more heat to beam onto Earth’s surface.

No supercomputer is powerful enough to predict cloud cover decades into the future, so Fasullo and colleague Kevin Trenberth struck on another method to test which of the many climate simulations most accurately predicted clouds: They looked at relative humidity. When humidity rises, clouds form; drier air produces fewer clouds. That makes humidity a good proxy for cloud cover.

I did an initial Google search and quickly found this [LINK] recent blog post that discusses cloud cover and global warming - seems like a good place to start.

There's no need to critique Dr. Watkins work as outlined in your quote.

That isn't science.

He said a few things, asked a few questions, provided no measurements or methods.

He appears to be saying that climate models aren't trustworthy without providing any evidence of that. Perhaps he's published a paper supporting his claim, but I can't find it. The difficulty with large climate models that are both sound and have variation in outcome of a few degrees C is not a significant concern.

I saw some news copy on that very topic earlier today, citing John Fasullo - Washington Post but I suggest you read the study itself or the summary along with any news clippigns.

Not that it matters any, but I voted for Gary Johnson (L). Congress, and Congress alone, controls the purse strings. Presidents can veto spending bills, but they can be over ridden by the Senate.

My personal opinion? It really did not matter who was elected President, when it comes down to the financial disasters this nation faces. Things were set in place long ago (the 1970's) that help assure this nation would be in deep financial troubles now. If not by actual designs to do so, then as a very unfortunate consequence of policies that were starting to form 40 years ago. There in no magic candidate that can "fix this" in any short time frame. Even Romney would have borrowed from the future with even further tax cuts. "Pay as you go" is a Republican talking point, but not a path they would actually venture down.

i have much respect that ya didn't vote for the 2 clowns that ran i think we need a serious 3rd party...

i also hope ya tell them who ya voted for in 2012 when they have 30 trillion in debt to pay for and you can either say you voted for against there future problems....

Not that it matters any, but I voted for Gary Johnson (L). Congress, and Congress alone, controls the purse strings. Presidents can veto spending bills, but they can be over ridden by the Senate.

My personal opinion? It really did not matter who was elected President, when it comes down to the financial disasters this nation faces. Things were set in place long ago (the 1970's) that help assure this nation would be in deep financial troubles now. If not by actual designs to do so, then as a very unfortunate consequence of policies that were starting to form 40 years ago. There in no magic candidate that can "fix this" in any short time frame. Even Romney would have borrowed from the future with even further tax cuts. "Pay as you go" is a Republican talking point, but not a path they would actually venture down.

My only desire, Ossqss, is that you are keeping a diary of all your denial industry comments for your grandchildren to read later. I, personally, would like them to know the position you have taken over the years and how you ignored the science to form your biased and baseless opinions. What will they think of their grandpa, after reading your posts on these blogs?

i also hope ya tell them who ya voted for in 2012 when they have 30 trillion in debt to pay for and you can either say you voted for against there future problems....

Quoting Neapolitan:Watkins is a relative unknown in the world of denialism, an economics professor at San Jose State in California with degrees in Math, Physics, and Computer Science (important note: zero formal training in climatology, meteorology, or any of the other earth sciences). Watkins is convinced that all the climate scientists who work with the IPCC are wrong at best, and probably fraudulent liars; that increased CO2 is good for plants and thus the economy; that hastening the demise of Arctic sea ice would be great for the economy (oil! transportation!); that warming Canada and Siberia would be great for the farming economy; that the theory of AGW is alarmist nonsense; and so on. In other words, he's yet another non-climatologist who may know a thing or two about economics (although, it should be noted, he believes the 2008 recession was contrived and didn't really occur), but who is seriously out of step with what's actually going on in the world of climate science. That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that anyone--such as your online acquaintance--who gives Watkins' musings more weight than they do things that actual climate scientists say is doing him- or herself a huge disfavor by remaining willfully ignorant.

(On a side note, it always amuses me just how many economists are accepted as climate experts, yet how few climate scientists would ever be considered reliable experts on the economy.)

Anyway, I've not got much to say in critique of Watkins' thoughts on climate or modeling, other than to say that in roughly 25 minutes of looking through his writings, I wasn't able to come across a single item that hasn't been thoroughly debunked and dismissed, often numerous times. Watkins is certainly free to cling to his misguided beliefs, and others are free to listen to him. But he is, in a word, wrong.

watkins has great respect with is work.....you might not like him but he is very good....

Quoting iceagecoming:Further west, skies will be mainly sunny on Friday and Saturday, with excellent visibility for those who enjoy a bracing walk in the Pennines, but a widespread frost expected at night.

It's perfectly normal to get a cold snap at this time of the year, and it will prove to be temporary, as less cold Atlantic air moves back in on Sunday, bringing cloud and some rain.

But it comes after what has been quite an exceptional few weeks of below average temperatures.

According to climatologist Philip Eden, the period from mid-September to mid-October was the coldest such period since 1974, and in the last century only 1952 and 1905 was colder.

Yep. And just what's been predicted by climatologists for years as the Arctic continues to lose ice.

Quoting Xulonn:I started a thread on a local expat blog here in Panama as Sandy was heading up past the Carolinas. I was alarmed, but a friend who posted in my thread was put off by the hype of TV weather and news, and is turned off by the disaster recovery insurance "industry" and didn't think it would be a big disaster. Then Sandy exceeded forecasts with respect to storm surge and and I got into an interesting discussion with him. He is a skeptic to a certain extent, especially with the projected extreme negative impacts of AGW/CC, and is not nearly as worried as I am about the future. However, even though he currently refers to Dr. Masters as an "alarmist," I would not call him a denialist. Here's my friend's response to the above post by me:I'm not knowledgeable about the role of clouds in global warming, although I do know that different types of clouds at different altitudes have different dynamics. In doing cursory research on clouds and AGW/CC, I stumbled on Thayer Watkins site at San Jose State University , and have a feeling that my friend, originally from Silicon Valley, may be getting his info from this economist/mathematician's writings, available at this link. Here's Professor Watkin's Conclusion regarding clouds and AGW/CC: Any constructive criticisms of Dr. Watkins' critique of AGW/CC modeling and science?

Watkins is a relative unknown in the world of denialism, an economics professor at San Jose State in California with degrees in Math, Physics, and Computer Science (important note: zero formal training in climatology, meteorology, or any of the other earth sciences). Watkins is convinced that all the climate scientists who work with the IPCC are wrong at best, and probably fraudulent liars; that increased CO2 is good for plants and thus the economy; that hastening the demise of Arctic sea ice would be great for the economy (oil! transportation!); that warming Canada and Siberia would be great for the farming economy; that the theory of AGW is alarmist nonsense; and so on. In other words, he's yet another non-climatologist who may know a thing or two about economics (although, it should be noted, he believes the 2008 recession was contrived and didn't really occur), but who is seriously out of step with what's actually going on in the world of climate science. That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that anyone--such as your online acquaintance--who gives Watkins' musings more weight than they do things that actual climate scientists say is doing him- or herself a huge disfavor by remaining willfully ignorant.

(On a side note, it always amuses me just how many economists are accepted as climate experts, yet how few climate scientists would ever be considered reliable experts on the economy.)

Anyway, I've not got much to say in critique of Watkins' thoughts on climate or modeling, other than to say that in roughly 25 minutes of looking through his writings, I wasn't able to come across a single item that hasn't been thoroughly debunked and dismissed, often numerous times. Watkins is certainly free to cling to his misguided beliefs, and others are free to listen to him. But he is, in a word, wrong.

I started a thread on a local expat blog here in Panama as Sandy was heading up past the Carolinas. I was alarmed, but a friend who posted in my thread was put off by the hype of TV weather and news, and is turned off by the disaster recovery insurance "industry" and didn't think it would be a big disaster. Then Sandy exceeded forecasts with respect to storm surge and and I got into an interesting discussion with him. He is a skeptic to a certain extent, especially with the projected extreme negative impacts of AGW/CC, and is not nearly as worried as I am about the future. However, even though he currently refers to Dr. Masters as an "alarmist," I would not call him a denialist.

Quoting Xulonn (at another internet forum):AGW/CC is a long-term process that may be irreversible with respect to human life spans.

It is my opinion (and that of many others who study global warming/climate change) that the IPCC is being very cautious and conservative for political reasons. If they sound too alarmist, they will not be listened to, even if they would base such forecasts and projections on accepted, peer-reviewed science. The basis of many of their conclusions is from models that are being proven to be far too conservative. I see reports of scientists being surprised the "the models underestimated" this or that quite frequently.

It sounds like you are very well versed in insurance and risk, and I believe that the "facts and research" based reinsurance industry takes catastrophe risk very seriously. Google "global reinsurance climate change" (without the quotes), and you'll see some of the reports that influenced my recent postings far more than my one quote and reading at Weather Underground.

Munich Re is the world's largest reinsurer when it comes to extreme damage payments, and North America is its most important market. It would be hard to posit a far-left liberal agenda in the company's pronouncements. Its goal is simply to make money, and it does so by mitigating risk. If Munich Re sees risk in climate change, I find that noteworthy. Consider this quote from the company's report:

"In the long term, anthropogenic climate change is believed to be a signi%uFB01cant loss driver. [...] It particularly affects formation of heatwaves, droughts, thunderstorms and -- in the long run -- tropical cyclone intensity."

Munich Re is not alone in its position. Insurer and asset manager Allianz (NASDAQOTH: AZSEY.PK) actively lobbies for worldwide, binding carbon emission targets and has designed various products around climate change risk, such as catastrophe bonds and micro-insurance. Global reinsurer Swiss Re convened its fourth annual Climate Week NYC conference -- at which it pushes for action on climate change -- barely one month before Hurricane Sandy struck and has a "risk transfer for adaptation" product line that is explicitly geared toward climate-change risks.

Here's my friend's response to the above post by me:

Quoting from a friend's post on a non-climate blog:OK, I Googled "global reinsurance climate change" and found that the insurance industry has a perverse interest in promoting climate disasters: They are actually betting AGAINST climate change. If they promote the danger of climate change and gain regulatory approval for higher insurance premiums, either:

1) The disasters happen and they are covered, or

2) They don't happen and the insurance companies make a huge windfall profit - this is what I would do if I was an insurance company

The insurance companies win the most if they are able to raise premiums to the max and the whole thing turns out to be bogus (not saying, but...)

But Dave, the biggest, most reputable agency advising the world about climate change says that NONE of the recent weather events are attributable to AGW. That means that they have the centrist position, while some radical alarmists (Masters) are claiming AGW weather effects not supported by "accepted science" on one side and those pesky skeptics challenging their conclusions on the other side. Who is a policy maker to believe?

And please, no one in their right mind "denies" that climate change is happening, nor that there is an anthropogenic component. The argument is the magnitude of that component and the direction of the feedbacks that will result. None of your GCMs (Global Climate Models) accurately model clouds, and yet water vapor in all its wonderful variety, comprises 95% of earth's greenhouse gasses. Positive or negative feedback, which is it? My vote is negative, just due to the observation that earth is not Venus or Mars and has survived for some 4 billion years without one day that life could not survive here, despite the Deccan and Siberian Traps, asteroid strikes, etc. Not one of those much more dramatic events created positive feedback in our climate system.

I'm not knowledgeable about the role of clouds in global warming, although I do know that different types of clouds at different altitudes have different dynamics. In doing cursory research on clouds and AGW/CC, I stumbled on Thayer Watkins site at San Jose State University , and have a feeling that my friend, originally from Silicon Valley, may be getting his info from this economist/mathematician's writings, available at this link. Here's Professor Watkin's Conclusion regarding clouds and AGW/CC:

Quoting Thayer Watkins:Conclusions - Climate models focus on the effect of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor, to the neglect of cloud cover. As shown above this effect is much smaller than that of clouds. Does this mean that the projected temperature change over the next century is larger than the climate models suggest? In principle that would be the case, but the climate models have been tweaked to give plausible projections. For example, the climate models use a rate of increase of the concentration of carbon dioxide which is two and a half times the current rate. There is no justification for this other than to produce scarier projections. The climate models are probably just worthless and should be scrapped. The ones that ventured to provide validation by carrying out backcasts failed miserably. Some people think that because the climate models contain only equations based upon fluid dynamics and thermodynamics that that makes them valid. The climate models are in error from what they have left out rather from what they contain.

Any constructive criticisms of Dr. Watkins' critique of AGW/CC modeling and science?

Granted, predictions of the sea level beyond the year 2100 have wide confidence intervals, and depend greatly on variables like greenhouse gas emissions and how quickly some of the larger ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic melt. But even allowing for the world to get its emissions under control within a reasonable time frame, New York will still see the water level rise by several feet, as it did during the hurricane, within the next century or two.

A report published in Nature Climate Change in June projects that on our current emissions path, the sea level will rise 40 inches by 2100 and 7 inches per decade thereafter. At that rate, the sea level would hit the Hurricane Sandy proportions of 9 feet around the year 2200; the five foot rise will occur in just over a century. The same paper notes that even if global warming is held to 2 degrees Celsius, there's a 50 percent probability that the sea level will reach 9 feet by the year 2300%u2014much further out in time.

Really, the year 2200?

2200? Really?????

The models, none of them, cannot reproduce what we currently observe and you post something with a target date of the year 2200?

This is a prime example as to why your attempted message is in trouble with the populous.

Granted, predictions of the sea level beyond the year 2100 have wide confidence intervals, and depend greatly on variables like greenhouse gas emissions and how quickly some of the larger ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic melt. But even allowing for the world to get its emissions under control within a reasonable time frame, New York will still see the water level rise by several feet, as it did during the hurricane, within the next century or two.

A report published in Nature Climate Change in June projects that on our current emissions path, the sea level will rise 40 inches by 2100 and 7 inches per decade thereafter. At that rate, the sea level would hit the Hurricane Sandy proportions of 9 feet around the year 2200; the five foot rise will occur in just over a century. The same paper notes that even if global warming is held to 2 degrees Celsius, there's a 50 percent probability that the sea level will reach 9 feet by the year 2300—much further out in time.

Although more Americans are beginning to worry about climate change, I agree that congress is unlikely to do anything to promote increases in energy efficiency and facilitate increased research and growth in alternative energy during the next two years, or work towards a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry just has too much influence on Congress and the entire U.S. political system.

However, I am hoping that President Obama, whose re-election prospects look very good at the moment, will do what he can with regulatory tools.

When I think about the anti-science attitude that is so popular in the U.S, these days, I am reminded of a comment made by Isaac Asimov in a 1980 Newsweek column:

"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." The Roving Mind (1983)Issac Asimov

"The true artist is quite rational as well as imaginative and knows what he is doing; if he does not, his art suffers. The true scientist is quite imaginative as well as rational, and sometimes leaps to solutions where reason can follow only slowly; if he does not, his science suffers."

For more than 30 years, climate scientists have debated whether flood waters from melting of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet, which ushered in the last major cold episode on Earth about 12,900 years ago, flowed northwest into the Arctic first, or east via the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to weaken ocean thermohaline circulation and have a frigid effect on global climate.

Now University of Massachusetts Amherst geoscientist Alan Condron, with Peter Winsor at the University of Alaska, using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models, report the first conclusive evidence that this flood must have flowed north into the Arctic first down the Mackenzie River valley. They also show that if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth's climate would have remained relatively unchanged.

"This episode was the last time the Earth underwent a major cooling, so understanding exactly what caused it is very important for understanding how our modern-day climate might change in the future," says Condron of UMass Amherst's Climate System Research Center.

That idea doesn't get us below 320 ppm Co2 and restore Arctic Ice and can not be regulate SST's to anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees on demand by changing set point for any time period......My idea let's the heat out of the oven........

The slow rate of emissions cuts in major economies has put the world on track for "at least six degrees of warming" by the end of the century, analysts will warn today.

New research by consultancy giant PwC finds an unprecedented 5.1 per cent annual cut in global emissions per unit of GDP, known as carbon intensity, is needed through to 2050 if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change and meet an internationally agreed target of limiting average temperature increases to just two degrees above pre-industrial levels.

Such deep reductions in carbon intensity would be over six times greater than the 0.8 per cent average annual cuts achieved since 2000.

Forecasters who warned of devastation before the biggest Atlantic storm in history hit the East Coast may be staring into a dimmer crystal ball four years from now.

A weather satellite system under development has struggled with delays and costs that have soared to $12.9 billion. The result is that the U.S. will probably have a blind spot in the system by the end of 2016, with one polar satellite reaching the end of its life before a replacement can be launched.

Data from those satellites are used nationally to warn of severe weather events such as Sandy, the superstorm that cut electricity to 8 million customers and killed at least 75 people in the U.S.

The replacement satellite, one of two planned for the new Joint Polar Satellite System, was scheduled to launch in 2014 and has been delayed until at least 2017, Powner said. Based on the estimated life of the polar satellite already in orbit, forecasters should anticipate a data gap of between 17 and 53 months, according to written testimony Powner delivered to Congress in June.

The coverage hole would mean forecasters would have to rely on less frequent data used to develop weather models and warn of extreme events such as hurricanes.

“The polar data is very important to tracking storm intensity, speed and direction,” he said.

You will one day understand that exchanging email tips/links with a radical mentor is not the only information available to you. I do feel sorry for you, but hold out hope.

I hope for real change in your climate, not just political sound bytes. We certainly need it badly.

Just look around you at what we have after 4 years of poor decision making.

Yep, that's right! I do hope for change I can believe in, along with many others.

LMAO! .... ROFLMAO!

What???? Who's e-mails are you reading? Mine, or my "mentor's"?

I never suggested that anyone could "fix" all things "stupid", nor "fix" all people that are "stupid". I am holding out hope that mankind can "fix" enough of the "stupid" concerning climate change. .... I kinda put you on the back burner concerning this. There are people out there that are open to learning the facts concerning climate change. Some refuse to acknowledge the facts on climate change and we are all well aware of this.

My only desire, Ossqss, is that you are keeping a diary of all your denial industry comments for your grandchildren to read later. I, personally, would like them to know the position you have taken over the years and how you ignored the science to form your biased and baseless opinions. What will they think of their grandpa, after reading your posts on these blogs?

You will one day understand that exchanging email tips/links with a radical mentor is not the only information available to you. I do feel sorry for you, but hold out hope.

I hope for real change in your climate, not just political sound bytes. We certainly need it badly.

Just look around you at what we have after 4 years of poor decision making.

Yep, that's right! I do hope for change I can believe in, along with many others.

You must see the same Senate, and POTUS CHANGE coming that most of us in America feel necessary.

The time of the inverted Pyramid of climate change science has left the building. You are obviously preparing for it accordingly.

My only desire, Ossqss, is that you are keeping a diary of all your denial industry comments for your grandchildren to read later. I, personally, would like them to know the position you have taken over the years and how you ignored the science to form your biased and baseless opinions. What will they think of their grandpa, after reading your posts on these blogs?